Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Malvern Hill


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Malvern Hill

 * Nominator(s): ceradon ( talk  •  contribs )

I believe I erred when submitting this article for FA-review before A-Class review, so here goes. I'm trying to get this article and a few more to FA status or at least A-class status within the next few months. I believe the article is in good shape, save for some things that don't flow. I'll work on those as soon as I can. Thank you for your consideration. ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on sources Just one minor nitpick: A fine article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the external links is a uncategorized redirect.
 * Thank you. In regards to the link, which one is it? I can't seem to find it. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I had a quick look, but I have to go out for a bit, so I will post a partial review for the time being. Overall, I can see that you've put a lot of work into the article and I don't see too much holding it back from A-class. I have a couple of suggestions:
 * I think the first sentence of the lead is a little convoluted and probably could be split;
 * Reworded; good now?
 * In the infobox you have "37 batteries", but I can’t seem to find this figure in the body of the article (I can find the 10 batteries figure);
 * Fixed; that was mine own folly.
 * There is some inconsistency in presentation of distances, for instance compare: "two miles (3.2 km)" v "one mile (1.6 kilometers)"
 * I'm not following. The "two miles" tells of Malvern Hill's distance from the James, while the "one mile" says how long Malvern Hill's slope is. I'm sorry if I haven't made that absolutely clear, but I'm not sure how I could elucidate that further. Thoughts?
 * G'day, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I meant compare "km" with "kilometers". The style should be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found a few instances of that and corrected them. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  contribs ) 03:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this: "McClellan's supposed feeling…" why was it supposed? I’d suggest just removing this word as it seems like casting doubt
 * Some historians do cast doubt on whether McClellan truly believed he was outnumbered, or where he was just boosting Confederate numbers to curry support in Washington. But anyway, I've removed supposed, though it does make it a bit inconsistent with the first note in the article.
 * The sentence beginning "Captain John E. Beam of the Union's 1st New Jersey Artillery" in the Beginning of battle section is possibly trying to do a bit too much; I suggest trying to split it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was confused a bit when I read it. Don't know how that didn't get copyedited. Is it good now? --ceradon ( talk •  contribs ) 02:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your changes look good to me. I've read through the rest of it now and made a couple of minor tweaks. It might pay to get Dank or someone to take a run at tightening some of the wording closer to a run at FAC, but I think it is good enough for A-class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Alas, I didn't know this review was going on. Perhaps I jumped on the train on this one at a bad time. I am undertaking a nontrivial... what would I call it?... sortuva-maybe-rewrite, and alas again I tend to write slowly because I check many sources and chew them over like cud. I intend to add a new section about the abortive Confederate barrage, and then check every detail top-to-bottom, probably with an eye on a run at FA in a few weeks. I've never been involved in a MILHIST A-review (at least not that I remember), and have no idea how long it tends to keep going.&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 08:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done with copy edit&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 05:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Image check All images look OK except for one I'm not sure about (the recent photo of a cannon). I have queried Moonriddengirl or her various tps editors about it. I expect it's OK. If it isn't, deleting that one image would do no harm to the article. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * update: modern img licensing OK too as per moonriddengirl&bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 12:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gday. Thanks for getting on to my comments so quickly, mostly those changes look good to me. Some points: your recent changes have gone a long way towards addressing the issues that I saw with the article so I've added my support now. Thanks for your patience and for working through my points so diligently. A couple of final suggestions: Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * There are a couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * James River
 * John Magruder
 * Delinked.
 * Some of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
 * Image review completed above (no action req'd).
 * Captions look fine (no action req'd).
 * Some of the headings seem non-standard and you might consider adopting some of the more common headings used in other articles on similar topics. For instance "Reasons for outcome" might more simply be changed to "Assessment", while "After battle" (which seems very clumsy to me) might be changed to "Subsequent operations" (suggestion only, up to you of cse).
 * Changed "After battle" to "Subsequent events". As for "Reasons for outcome", I was going by the model at this FA.
 * Is it standard to not use ranks in ACW articles? There seem a number of instances where notable officers are introduced without their rank at first instance in both the lead and the body of the article (for instance McClellan, Magruder, Smith etc).
 * Fixed as many as I saw.
 * There seems to be some terms that although linked in the lead, should also be linked on first appearance in the body of the article (such as notable individuals like the commanders, various formations etc) - see WP:REPEATLINK.
 * Done.
 * There are a number of instances of ranks continuing to be used at second instance contrary to MOS:SURNAME, for instance "As more of McClellan's forces arrived at the hill, General Porter continued..." should just be "As more of McClellan's forces arrived at the hill, Porter continued..." (to further confuse matters you seem to use "General" and "Brigadier General" interchangbly in some places also - the casual reader will be confused by this or at least they should be)
 * Fixed as many as I saw. Do report any you still see.
 * "McClellan left his troops at Malvern Hill and traveled downstream aboard the ironclad USS Galena towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River." Why did he do this? Presumably there was a reason (reasonable or otherwise). Or did I miss where you discuss this? Was he conducting a reconnaissance there for instance?
 * He went to Harrison's Landing to inspect his army's future resting place there. Added that to the article.
 * Is there a reason "Fifth Corps" is wikilinked to First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia? Doesn't seem an obvious connection (although I have no knowledge of this subject so perhaps there is?)
 * A gaff on my part.
 * "The firefight awoke three Union boats on the James..." use of the word "awoke" seems a little too poetic / almost euphemistic to describe naval gunfire support / a bombardment in an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps reword to state simply what occurred (or replace awoke with "alerted" or something like that)?
 * Reworded.
 * There are other examples of such prose that I think could be tightened, for instance: "Artillery fire, both Confederate and Union, continued to boom across the hill for at least an hour..." why not just say "Confederate and Union artillery fire continued across the hill for at least an hour..." or something similar?
 * Done.
 * "...by this time, it was four in the afternoon..." inconsistent with the requirements at MOS:TIME
 * Changed to "4 pm"
 * In many places the article uses an overly descriptive narrative in a style that I'm not familiar with seeing regularly employed in our battle articles (e.g. "artillery boomed", "The scene after the battle on Malvern Hill was ghastly", "the horrors of war were shown in stunning clarity" etc). Also it uses quite a few first hand quotes. I'm unclear what style is generally used in our American Civil War articles so if I wrong pls tell me to pull my head in, yet to me this style seems more in keeping with one more often employed in popular non-fiction than in an encyclopedia. I wonder if this could be dialed down a bit?
 * I've never heard that one before. I'm afraid that's just how I write. Not sure how I can "fix" that.
 * "Both capitals, Washington and Richmond, became hospitals." This seems like hyperbole to me and is an extension of my previous point. Surely the doubtless effect of the requirement of both sides to treat large numbers of wounded could be described in more accurate, less dramatic terms? One assumes there were makeshift hospitals set up etc...
 * Tightened this up a bit.
 * "Colonel Henry Hunt, the Union chief artillerist, who accumulated and concentrated the Union guns, did commendable work...", this sounds like someone's opinion. If so it needs to be attributed (my concern is the word "commendable"). Otherwise it should be re-worded to highlight the importance of Hunt's proficient placement of the guns on the outcome of the battle without saying it was "commendable".
 * Reworded.
 * "according to Campbell Brown of Richard Ewell's detachment, hung like an albatross over Lee's men." - this appears to be a quote so quotation marks are probably req'd here (i.e. around the hung like an albatross over Lee's men." If its not a quote and its your words it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me and would suggest rewording to be more matter of fact.
 * Reworded.
 * The prose here is a bit much too "the deliverance of Richmond from the Union Army that threatened it..."
 * Reworded.
 * And straight after it "Newspapers in Richmond made no small fuss of this after the battle."
 * Reworded.
 * Sounds like commentary "The comment of "so small cost to the victors" may be worthy of debate..." Suggest rewording.
 * Reworded.
 * "The "full confidence" comment"... it doesn't seem necessary to repeat the quote in the next sentence, you might just consider being more economical by saying something like "such opinions were not unanimous though..." or something like that.
 * Reworded.
 * "He was labelled either an imbecile or a traitor." This seems to be a unequivocal statement with no qualification. Surely it doesn't adequately sum up all sides of the public debate that must have occurred at the time? Wouldn't there have been some commentators that defended McClellan and if so what view are they reported to have advanced? What did McClellan himself have to say about his conduct for that matter? Presumably he wasn't quiet on the subject.
 * Took that piece out. It was a bit much. I think the other parts of your comment are covered in previous paragraphs in the same section.
 * The use of quotes throughout the article seems to be excessive to me, and lends itself to the issues I have highlighted above (pls see the guidance at WP:QUOTEFARM). In reality much of the useful information they convey could be retained and presented more succinctly by paraphrasing them using your own words.
 * Can you give some examples please?
 * Overall, this article appears to have been a substantial undertaking and it has much to commend it. Unfortunately though I think there are quite a number of issues which would need to be addressed before it could be successful at FAC, hence why I have raised many of them here now. I do not regularly review ACW articles though so I'll accept I've little experience with the standard in that area, as such if you think I have erred in any of my criticism pls feel free to say so and I will revisit my comments. If you would like clarification of any point I'll be glad to do so also. Anotherclown (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied. --ceradon ( talk •  contribs ) 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Both capitals, Washington and Richmond, were filled with their respective faction's dead and wounded, and provisional hospitals sprung up all about the two cities..." This is an improvement but still problematic to me. Firstly "their respective faction's dead and wounded" almost seems too drawn out (you could probably get away with just "the dead and wounded"), and secondly it is still inaccurate to say the cities were "filled" with the dead and wounded as it is an overstatement. What is the point you are trying to make? Is it that the dead and wounded were concentrated in casualty collection points in Washington and Richmond (as opposed to elsewhere) but that the medical facilities available there were inadequate and makeshift arrangements were required for their care as a result? Secondly I'd suggest changing "sprung up" to "set up" as it is more accurate and less "story-like".
 * Done.
 * I notice you have started to implement the abbreviation of ranks. I've got my own opinions about this tendency (I think they should always be written in full for lay readers); however, I accept that there appears to be long-standing consensus in ACW articles for this style so its up to you which you use. That said there are now two styles being used, one with ranks abbreviated (i.e. "Brig. Gen") and others written in full (i.e. "Colonel", "Captain", or "Lieutenant" for example). This inconsistency seems problematic to me.
 * Done. Tell me if you spot anymore, but I think I got them all.
 * In the lead "Magruder and D.H. Hill, respectively", what rank was D.H. Hill?
 * Just prior to you quote, it has Maj. Gens. Magruder and D.H. Hill. I was hoping the "Gens." would indicate I meant "Generals"
 * "The division of George McCall, badly damaged...", what rank was McCall?
 * Done.
 * There is inconsistency in the initials for Hill (sometimes you write "D.H." and others "D.H"), pls see MOS:SPACEINITS for guidance.
 * Done.
 * Several individuals introduced with rank in the lead still need to be introduced at first instance in the body of the article in the same manner (for instance McCellan, McGruder, Smith all in the first paragraph of the "military situation" section). (Essentially my point is that the lead and the article are considered separate by the MOS IRT formal introduce of people and wikilinks etc so its not doubling up). To clarify:
 * "In spring 1862, Union commander George McClellan developed..." pls add McClellan's rank here.
 * "the Federal advance was halted by the Warwick Line, a defensive position commanded by John B. Magruder..." pls add Magruder's rank here
 * "To stymie the Southerners' retreat, McClellan sent Willaim F. "Baldy" Smith...", pls add Smith's rank here
 * All done.
 * You requested examples re quotes but unfortunately there are far too many for me just to say this one or that one and have you change only those. My point is that unless using the text directly from the source or quoting a first person account is really necessary to enhance understanding (i.e. to illustrate a verbal or written order that was given for example, someone's opinion, or perhaps even a key commander's interpretation or thoughts of a cse of events on the battlefield etc) then I cannot see it justified to use them here. In so many places you use quotes merely to set the scene for the reader (and do so well I might add), but this is a method that is not in keeping with encyclopedic summary style. Just the facts is what is req'd here, not usually how a non-notable individual felt, or what they saw etc. Some specific instances to (hopefully) illustrate what I'm referring to:
 * This one here seems to be of little encyclopedic value and could probably be removed: McClellan was greatly heartened at the display, writing to his wife, "The dear fellows cheer me as of old as they march to certain death & I feel prouder of them than ever." Fine in a book of cse dedicated to the subject but I can't see how it is relevant in an encyclopedia which is meant to be concise and stick to the facts.
 * This one has no purpose for me and could be deleted also: "What the road was... I cannot recall," remarked Lieutenant Thomas Livermore of the 5th New Hampshire Infantry, "I know simply that it was darkness and toil, until we began climbing a hill and were greeted with advancing dawn." In my experience all forced marches are tiring so I'm uncertain what else this is being quoted for? Is the point to reinforce the confusion about which road was the Quaker Road? If so I think the point has been made sufficiently elsewhere.
 * And this one could be mostly paraphrased rather than quoted: "The Union soldiers were resting in position," Brent recalled, "some sitting or lying down, and others moving at ease or disappearing behind the ridge."[33] He also saw the muzzles of cannons that rimmed the hill's slope. Brent thought the Union line "seemed almost impregnable".[33] For instance: Brent observed the Union soldiers resting in position, whilst the disposition of the cannons detected rimming the hill's slope gave him the impression that the position was "almost impregnable". This wording of cse is merely a suggestion based on what I assume your intent was in including the quote. The idea is where you have included a quote to draw out the salient points and paraphrase it instead.
 * Likewise here: "Huger still stayed in place until someone from Lee's headquarters "conducted [them] to the front". Why is it necessary to use a quote here? Wouldn't it not be easier just to use your own words rather than mangling a quote?
 * Or here: "We lived in one immense hospital, and breathed the vapors of the charnel house," a woman remembered." This just seems to be scene setting / story telling.
 * Reworded the ones I saw.
 * Some may think this sub-set of criticism is overly prescriptive and maybe it is. To be clear I'm not saying we cannot use some level of quotation to enhance our reader's understanding of an event and how it was experienced by those that lived through it (or died in it for that matter). On the main I agree we can attempt to "set the scene" for them with some quotes if that is your preferred style (although only sparingly and only where its important), but overall I think this is done too often in this article. Equally in some places using quotes just seems to be done to avoid writing something in our own words which might seem a little lazy (sorry, I'm not saying you are being lazy, indeed clearly in writing such a detailed and heavily researched article you are not, but more effort could be expended to use your own words that's all).
 * I've reworded or removed some of the quotes. I hope that will be sufficient.
 * "Lieutenant Charles B. Haydon of the 2nd Michigan Infantry recalled that he was almost buried in sand and stubble when a Confederate shell exploded near him, and that he caught a ball from a shrapnel shell that stopped rolling near him and had to dodge two more." Why are the experiences of Haydon notable? Whilst admittedly not a quote it seems to be included here purely to describe the experience of an individual rather than illustrate a key aspect of the fighting or the cse of the battle. As such it seems a little like padding and I would suggest it be removed. (this is a suggestion only and I certainly would not oppose it being retained verbatim if you or others disagree, I guess I'm trying to illustrate a point I see with the way you have written this article which I don't believe lends itself to "encyclopedic style", whatever that is...)
 * Removed.
 * I am still concerned by "Confederate and Union artillery continued to boom" ("fired" is far more accurate, "boom" is a sound but seems to be being used to describe an action), although your other changes to this sentence look fine to me.
 * Done.
 * Likewise (and I mentioned this one above but not in detail) "The scene after the battle on Malvern Hill was ghastly." This is the writer's opinion about how the reader should feel about a scene he/she didn't observe. Of cse we can assume that the average person viewing the scene would find it "ghastly" but it is not fact and I don't really think it is appropriate. (again some level of this would be ok, and I am probably being overly critical, its more this sort of language coupled with the multiple instances of excessive description and quotes that creates a "non-encyclopedic" impression when I read it.)
 * Done.
 * Ok I'll end this here and see how you go in response. To lay my cards out on the table though - I think this is a good article and am happy with the changes you have made so far. There are still some MOS issues though (re inconsistent abbreviated and non-abbreviated ranks for instance which has recently been introduced into the article, and the continuing issue of missing ranks etc). These will need to be fixed before I'm prepared to add my support. IRT the issue of the quotes and the overly descriptive language - at this stage I seem to be the only one to whom this seems jarring (nothing raised in the ACR by anyone else or in the previous FA or the GA that I can see), so I'll leave it up to you as to what you decide to do about it (it is after all only my opinion and it may well be considered to be fine by other reviewers). I will not oppose on the basis of these points if you choose not to action them (although obviously I wouldn't be able to support promotion in that instance unless there was a clear consensus from other reviewers to the contrary). Hopefully my examples have helped to clarify what I mean at any rate. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the quotes -- I do believe some of the quotes I included were superfluous. As for the over-description, I would like to get a few other opinions on that. Can you guys give your opinions re: whether I was being too descriptive? Thank you, --ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's a judgment call. In general, however, no one has ever been penalized at FAC for adopting a straightforward "just the facts, Ma'am" tone. The use of key quotes by key people to reinforce key points and thereby burnish the "prose is engaging, even brilliant" aspect is clearly a good thing, but if anyone at all perceives the adjectives as being too poetic, then dialing them down a bit is harmless enough. In all, although I have never been in a MilHist a-class review (that I can recall), I don't think this is an issue that can't be resolved quickly. That's my .02. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I raised it above but you didn't specifically respond so I'm unsure if you disagreed with my comment; however, I'd be concerned that this was commentary: "Following the battle, the horrors of war were shown in stunning clarity" (up to you if you chose to leave it in when you go back to FAC but it just doesn't seem right to me).
 * Its a minor issue but I don't think your "In popular culture" section is MILMOS compliant, pls see WP:MILPOP which states ""In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture...". The way to get around it (as a suggestion) would be to simply delete the heading but retain the content of the section. (again up to you though).
 * I implemented your suggestion in the latter count. In the former, I reworded a bit; do you find this sufficient or would you prefer that I remove the entire sentence? In any event, thank you for your support and your recommendations. They have definitely improved the article. By the way, your username reminded me of a teacher years ago who used to call me "another clown". C'est la vie, I suppose. :-) --ceradon ( talk •  contribs ) 09:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, that looks fine to me now. No worries and all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.